Delete a WordPress category by ID from a specified site, removing it from the taxonomy to clean up content organization.
Delete a category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Category ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says only 'Delete a category'. It omits critical WordPress-specific behavior such as whether posts in the category are reassigned to the default category, whether deletion is reversible, and whether elevated permissions are required for a destructive mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three words are front-loaded and free of waste, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a destructive two-parameter tool. It is efficient but does not earn its place by conveying anything actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive mutation, the description is far too thin to be complete. An agent lacks any signal about side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes before calling it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'id' and 'site' are documented, with 'site' pointing to list_sites), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a category'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as wp_update_category, wp_delete_tag, or woo_delete_category, which an agent must distinguish when selecting a tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus wp_delete_tag, mcp_delete_term, or woo_delete_category, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.